scratch-mark

“Cold-Ass Facts”

I think Cathy Young does a decent job, here, of sorting through the steaming piles of bullshit that represent the left’s case against and the right’s case for the war in Iraq. You should take the few minutes to read it regardless of what side you’re on.

Of course, the charge that the Bush administration manipulated
intelligence data either is true, or isn’t true. There’s no such thing
as an unpatriotic fact.

And here’s the reason I hate this kind
of debate. To have a truly informed opinion on this topic would
probably take months of meticulous research, and probably some
specialized knowledge as well. That means most people commenting on the
issue tend to form their opinion based on selective information and
based, at least in part, on their political biases. It’s just a little
too convenient that nearly everyone who opposes the war thinks the Bush
administration cooked the intelligence, and nearly everyone who
supports it thinks that’s a cynical lie.

Yea, I’m generally for it, but only because killing primitives whose religion includes killing me to gain favor with their delusionally imagined god is a moral imperative. I said it way back at the beginning: the WMD-justification for war was stupid load of crap. Defending it, to this day, is moronic and makes Bush look like an imbecile. Then again, all politicians look like imbeciles, to me.

(Tipped off by: Hit & Run)

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

4 Comments

  1. allan on December 1, 2005 at 01:13

    Everyone has an opinion, no one has the facts.

    Most of the political blogs seem to work that way, – and they don't care as long as they can shout..

  2. Rich on December 1, 2005 at 16:35

    He may not have lied, but he wasn't _honest_. Do you understand the difference? Both sides are dishonest. They are only interested in truths (facts) that tend to support their position.

    Honesty demands getting all relevant facts and integrating them objectively within their applicable context.

    But this sort of thing never, ever happens in politics, nor does it happen amongst either side of the political debate. It is the most woefully dishoest endeavor, from top to bottom that I've ever witnessed.

  3. Hank on December 1, 2005 at 16:23

    The party line the left has about "Bush lied" doesn't pass the test of logic.
    Why would Bush knowingly promote the WMD aspect when the success of that argument would cause him to send the military to uncover the fact he lied in the first place?
    French, German, British and US intelligence agencies all were convinced Sadam had weapons of mass destruction. Bush didn't lie.

  4. John Lopez on December 3, 2005 at 18:27

    It's also worth noting that people can still be honest even if they don't integrate facts correctly, as long as they attempt to do so.

    This "WMD" nonsense didn't even make it over that bar.

Leave a Comment





YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780